So…A quick survey of the Naval Vessel Register offered up some data that could help the Navy sidestep the embarrassment of commissioning an undone ship (although commissioning a $6.4 billion-dollar ship that, with 97% of it coming in as “complete”, still has something like $200 million dollars of work left to do…is, at best, a stunner…).

But extra details remove a bit of the sting from providing the President with his second “Mission Accomplished” moment.

Why? Well, the George H.W. Bush is not alone! At least 20 nuclear submarines were commissioned before delivery–with the USS Nautilus (SSN-571) leading the way, commissioned some seven months before delivery. As far as surface ships go, the carrier USS Independence (CV-62) offers the best parallel, commissioned three months before delivery (It was commissioned on 1/10/1959 and delivered on 4/1/1959.).

That’s the kind of information commentators–of any political persuasion–can sink their teeth into. And it’s the kind of information the Naval Institute should demand from Navy PR people. (Photo: Northrop Grumman Newport News)

Related

About Defense Springboard

Defense Springboard is an academic who began engaging in national security debates as a doctoral student in Biomedical Sciences at Harvard University. After earning his degree in 2005, he lectures somewhere on the West Coast, and his research interests range from biological weaponry to littoral engagement.

A frequent contributor to USNI’s Proceedings Magazine, Springboard has published in the Naval War College Review, Navy Medicine, National Defense Magazine, The Washington Post, the International Herald Tribune and elsewhere.

One would suspect that the sitting president soon to leave office took advantage of a situation to make his Pops happy. Worse things have been done in the White House, and by far not this one alone, Ducky 😉

SeniorD

If I were W I’d make sure a carrier named for good ol’ Dad was commissioned on my watch.

Still, George H.W. won’t be seeing Fleet Service for at least another year.

Philip O’Leary

Are you sure you are not making a mountain out of a molehill? I would be willing to bet the builders are still going to be held to contract even though it is an early comisioning which is more cerimonial then anything else

Philip O’Leary

Im pretty sure the builders are still on contract for finishing the ships outfitting after its commisioning, are you sure your distaste for President Bush is not one of the reasons you wrote this blog?

Philip O’Leary

Im pretty sure the builder are still on contract to finnish the ship after its premature commisioning. Is this blog being fueled by distaste for President Bush?

Not Enterprise, but probably directly related to Kitty Hawk, which will decommission on 31 January at 10 AM.

Chap

@PO’L: Apparently so.

Byron

Phillip, not all of us feel that way about G.W. Bush. I personally think he was a good and decent man, who foound himself in a war not of his making, and did the best he could do to make his nation safe. Now Ducky, on the other hand, is a different story.

I’m no fan of political ships, that’s for certain. Ask yourselves, would we be spending the money (we are, after all, at war) to rush this carrier towards completion (with all the inherent quality control risks entailed by it) if the carrier were named–as Senator Warner once suggested on the pages of Proceedings–the Lexington?

Probably not. Frankly, I’d like to see ship names rationalized–name garbage scows after politicos, and let capital ships revert to their traditional titles. They’ve done good by us.

In fact, I’d suggest the next president rename ’em all. From Jimmy Carter to the Abe Lincoln to the Bush…it’s time to get the politics out of the Navy.

And finally, those of you who claim this was a product of animus, read the post. Yeah, I’m no Bush fan, but I suggest some ways the Navy might have used to limit the awkwardness of commissioning an undone ship–where both Bush and the Navy look a bit better.

Philip O’Leary

I personalyl have nothin against Bush and totally agree with Byron. In addition to that i belive he did the best he could and was the right man for the right time, as Obama is now. But we must be careful not to let personal feelings to influence what we write and post for all to read with out knowing all the details. I’m not a fan of politcal ships either, but i cannot do anything about it, personally I would of named CVN-77 or CVN-78 Langely sence it is the begining of a new era for the aircraft carrier, In addition to that I would of named LHA-6 Fallujah to keep a common naming system in place, as well as too honor the marines, sailors, soilders and airmen. I would also like to see some effort to bring back some other older names back to modern ships, Lexington, Saratoga, Yorktown, Ranger, Constellation….. instead of naming them after Admirals from the cold war era. But at the same time i would like to see newer names honored like Tora Bora, Kandahar, Ramadi, Khe Sahn and Da Nang as a homage to the heroism of all our service men were polotics is not an issue.

Also i did not mean to post it three times but it did not seem to registar on my computer so i kept reposting so if the moderator wants to remove it…..

PK

you guys need to walk up the gangway of enterprise, look up and see the huge sign in the hanger deck that says:

ENTERPRISE, eighth ship of the name……..

gives you squirrlies and curlies just to stand there and read the tail (it was all up there in detail when i saw it in 66).